시장지배적 지위 남용으로서 거래거절의 의의와 위법성 판단

A refusal to deal is basically affiliated to the autonomy of undertakings as an type of the freedom of contract, if it would exclude partner of the refusal to deal from the relevant market, it could be regulated as an abuse of market dominant power. A refusal to deal could be devided into a breakoff of the continual deal relations and a refusal to offer a new deal, a refusal in supply and in demand, horizontal refusal and vertical refusal, or independent refusal and ancillary refusal. Further more it is necessary to review a refusal to essential facilities, price squeezing(substantial refusal) or a refusal to deal of an undertakings without market dominant power. When a refusal to deal will be regulated as an abuse of market dominant power, it must be treated in three steps, definition of relevant market, decision of market dominant power and estimation of abuse. Specially in this process vertical intergrated structure will be the important factor to examine the abuse of market dominant power. In respect of competition law the illegality of refusal to deal is based upon anti-competition, but it must be discussed whether an existence of anti competition intent or purpose is required or not, to be recognized the illegality of refusal to deal. And to establish grounds for justification of refusal to deal will be extended to compare against the effect of competition restraints.